1. Time to Rethink Process
Automation Systems
(CPAS 2.0)
Dave Woll
VP Consulting
ARC Advisory Group
dwoll@arcweb.com

2. From CPAS to CPAS 2.0
CPAS conceived in 2005
 Issue: The introduction of internet technology to manufacturing
forced most of the suppliers to change their Control LAN and
ultimately innovate their entire systems. Users asked what to value
“everything looked the same”
 Purpose: Develop an ARC vision of the ideal evolution of current
process automation systems. The Collaborative Process Automation
System (CPAS)
 Deliverable: A detailed Outlook Study
CPAS 2.0 conceived in 2009
 Issue: There has been an absence of real innovation in both the
system and field devices. Users have asked how to value what is
needed next
 Purpose: Develop an ARC forecast of the ideal functional evolution
of process automation systems
 Deliverable: A detailed Outlook Study
2
© ARC Advisory Group

3. Top 10 Automation Business Drivers
1. Create proactive culture
2. Improve asset utilization
3. Enhance human reliability
4. Improve equipment reliability
5. Unify business and operations
6. Respond to uncontrollable external variables
7. Responsible care requirements
8. Prevent cyber security threats
9. Deal with loss of experienced staff
10.What is the potential value
3
© ARC Advisory Group

4. CPAS Guiding Principles
Principles CPAS Response
ROA
Extraordinary Performance
Operational
Excellence Continuous Improvement
Proactive Execution
Flawless Execution Common Actionable Context
Single Version of the Truth
Automate every thing that
Autonomous Automation should be automated
Facilitate Knowledge Workers
Manage All Automation
Common Infrastructure Robust, based on Stds
Precision
4
© ARC Advisory Group

5. CPAS Looks at Automation Holistically
From… To…
Business
System
Enterprise System
Production Manufacturing
Management Work
ISA S95 Transactions Operations Processes
Management
Sensors, Actuators and Logical Devices
ISA S88
Real-Time
Control &
Events
Single Model with Distributed Processing and Shared Services
5
© ARC Advisory Group

6. We Need Smarter Field Devices
 50 -75% of device downtime is caused by lack
of confidence in measurement
 Most field devices do not quantify health or
estimate remaining usable life
 Precludes operations from deciding run/shut
down.
 Lost critical measurement usually results in
shut down
 Active research, dearth of Products
• One product based on SEVA (self evaluating
technology BSI 7926)
6
© ARC Advisory Group

7. Systems Need to Become Truly Distributed
 Current leading Distributed Control Systems
and the original CPAS are not true DCSs
 Current DCSs are based on IEC61131-3 which
specifies programming languages and
architecture
 The architecture is limited to a single domain
with all resources operating in unison
 Resources cannot act autonomously
Current DCSs are a single model with distributed
processing and shared services
7
© ARC Advisory Group

8. System Resources Need to Operate Autonomously
When Necessary
 Functionally changes the control level
(reconfigure) at run-time
 Provides the foundation for “zero downtime
automation systems” and sustainable
operations
 Supports the utilization of high level
autonomous agent (FIPA), reasoning and
modeling
Potentially offers the highest value
8
© ARC Advisory Group

9. IEC Standard 61499 Supplements IEC 61131
 Single Model with Distributed Processing and
Independent Services
 Example: The Smart Watchdog from Intelligent
Maintenance Systems IMS)
DCS Fieldbus PLC
IEC 61804 IEC 61158 IEC 61131-3
Configurability Open Connectivity Configurability
Distributed Functionality Standard Programming Languages
Function Blocks
Industrial Process
Measurement
and Control Systems
(IPMCS)
IEC 61499
High Level
Function
Truly Distribution Blocks
Reasoning
Autonomy
9
© ARC Advisory Group

10. Control Strategies are not Tied to
Specific Hardware
 Control Strategies Must Transcend
Hardware
 Required to support autonomy and
reconfiguration
 Eliminates the need to position functions
into highly secure system levels
 Runs across disparate platforms
complimented single size resource scaled by
number
 Provides the opportunity to optimize
hardware cost and performance
10
© ARC Advisory Group

11. Secure On-Line Version Upgrades
 At least one major version Load New
Load
Version
upgrade every year
 Now requires a shut-down or at Evaluate
least a major vendor supported Abort
custom revision
 ARC supports a three step on- Go
line version upgrade
Revert
 Three step has crucial value
determining the new version is Accept
operating predictably before
committing to the process
Finished
11
© ARC Advisory Group

12. Need Business and Operations Unification
– Business to Planning
 Normally the integration of disparate information
is largely custom work
 This is the case when integrating SCM targets to
operations planning
 Reference standards can eliminate the majority of
this customization. Specifically:
 The SCOR model has been accepted as the
primary SCM reference model
 S95 has been accepted as the primary
Operations Management reference model
 There is a high correlation between the two
 This integration will deliver higher Business to
Planning performance
12
© ARC Advisory Group

13. Need Business and Operations Unification
– Real-time Planning to Production
Market Signals
Capable/Profitable to
Model Update (10/Day)
LPLP Planner
Planner Promise in Real-time
24/7 Optimization,
Minimal Human Involvement
Real-Time
RTO
Optimization Autonomous Transition
Management
Operator involvement:
- On/Off
- Operating Band
Supervisory Supervisory Supervisory
Controller 1 Controller 2 Controller 3
(DMC) (DMC) (DMC)
Dynamic Planner
Dynamic Planner
Short Term Production Planning Based on Market
Demand and Production Capabilities
13
© ARC Advisory Group

14. Thank You.
For more information, contact the author at
dwoll@arcweb.com or visit our web pages at
www.arcweb.com